A Balanced-budget Amendment`s True And False Dangers

August 23, 1987|By Stephen Chapman.

The editorial board of the New York Times has long been one of the nation`s most prominent and vocal advocates of an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. So it must have come as a shock to feminists to open the paper recently and learn that the grandeur of the Constitution`s bicentennial had instilled in the editors a profound distrust of any attempt to change it. The Times expressed alarm at the ``hazard of tampering with the Constitution`` and declared: ``Instead of writing new things into the Constitution, the elegant way to celebrate its 200th birthday is to read, and observe, what`s already there.``

But Molly Yard can relax. The Times hasn`t recanted its position on the ERA, which it still wants written into this otherwise unimprovable document. Its editors only get stuffy about amendments they don`t like-in this case, President Reagan`s attempt to outlaw budget deficits.

Reagan`s proposal is one whose results are likely to fall far short of its worthwhile purpose-while creating problems that neither he nor most of his critics foresee. But the defects of his idea don`t excuse the sheer dishonesty of those critics, of which the Times is only the most conspicuous example.

Since 1981, Americans have been pummeled with sermons about the dangers of Reagan`s chronic budget deficits. But the Savanarolas have almost uniformly opposed his effort to cure the problem once and for all. Reagan`s hypocrisy is just the reverse: He wants to prevent by constitutional amendment what he has not been willing to abate through political compromise.

But the Times is not satisfied to criticize the proposed amendment. It is more intent on disparaging the route by which it comes. Every previous amendment has been approved by Congress and then sent to the states for ratification. This time, since Congress has refused to act, the proponents tried the only alternative: persuading state legislatures to petition Congress for a constitutional convention to consider the idea. Of the 34 states required, 32 have approved such requests.

The Times` editors say the talk of a convention is ``playing with matches`` and that most of the state applications are more than seven years old-``hardly the expression of current sentiment that Congress must heed.``

They ought to heed their own advice to read the Constitution. This method of amendment is enshrined in Article V. And it puts no time limit on getting 34 states. If the Times that thinks constitutional conventions are inherently dangerous or that seven years is all the time the states should get in a convention drive, it ought to direct its complaints to the framers.

Besides, there`s a simple way to avoid both problems. Congress could approve an amendment on its own and send it to the states for consideration;

it could also impose a deadline. It thus would head off a convention and guarantee that the result will indeed reflect ``current sentiment.`` Why doesn`t the Times propose this option? Because it fears that the public opinion it claims to uphold would force a speedy ratification.

That would be too bad, but not for the reasons commonly advanced. The real flaw in trying to balance the budget by constitutional command is that it probably wouldn`t work and almost certainly would take important fiscal decisions away from elected officials. Conservatives were rightly wary about the unintended consequences of the ERA, but they are cheerily confident that this change will achieve just what they want and nothing else.

But the experience of Gramm-Rudman suggests that measures to constrain budget choices can be circumvented by determined politicians. If that happens with a constitutional amendment, the matter will have to be settled by the courts-the same ones whose powers conservatives hope to restrict by putting another advocate of judicial restraint on the Supreme Court.

The results won`t be pretty. If this amendment were passed, as one critic wrote in 1983, a deficit would produce ``hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits around the country, many of them on inconsistent theories and providing inconsistent results. By the time the Supreme Court straightened the whole matter out, the budget in question would be at least four years out of date and lawsuits involving the next three fiscal years would be slowly climbing toward the Supreme Court.``

The dangers of putting every item in the federal budget in the hands of judges should be obvious to anyone leery of judicial power. The real question, said this expert, is ``whether we want the economic policy of the United States to be what the judges say it is.`` Ronald Reagan might want to reconsider his amendment after having a chat with this fellow, a promising legal scholar by the name of Robert Bork.